“Narrating the nation”: Homi Bhabha and Gustav Frenssen∗

The Financial Assistance of the Centre for Scientific Development (HSRC, South Africa) towards this research is hereby acknowledged. Opinions expressed and conclusions arrived at, are those of the author and are not necessarily to be attributed to the Centre for Scientific Development.

Summary

The following paper is concerned with an attempt to describe the relation between the narrative and the nation in terms of a “psychodynamics of reading”, a project which was formulated in the special edition of Journal of Literary Studies concerned with “Writing/ Reading”, in a paper entitled “Writing and the Narrative” (to appear in JLS//TLW 10(1) March 1994). In that paper I provided a definition of the narrative as a form of literary text constituted of the inter‐relation between two principal armatures. The first constitutes the “story”, existing in what Roland Barthes describes as a logico‐temporal order (Barthes 1992: 30), and which, according to Emile Benveniste, needs to be understood (Benveniste 1986: 228–245). The second of those two armatures constitutes the “discourse”, which Barthes describes as existing beyond the constraints of a logico‐temporal order (Barthes 1992: 30), and which, according to Benveniste need only be named (Benveniste 1986: 228–245).

Opsomming

Die volgende referaat is gemoeid met ‘n poging om die relasie tussen die verhaalkuns en die nasie te beskryf in terme van ‘n “psigodinamiek van lees”. Hierdie projek is geformuleer in ‘n referaat getiteld “Writing and the Narrative” vir die spesiale uitgawe van die Tydskrif vir Literatuurwetenskap oor “Lees/skryf/skrif” (verskyn in JLS/TLW 10(1) Maart 1994). In laasgenoemde referaat verskaf ek ‘n definisie van die verhaalkuns as ‘n vorm van literêre teks wat saamgestel is deur die inter‐relasie tussen twee hoofankers ("armatures"), waarvan die eerste die “verhaal” konstitueer wat, volgens Roland Barthes, as ‘n logiese‐temporale orde beskryf word (Barthes 1992: 30) en wat, volgens Emile Benveniste, verstaan moet word (Benveniste 1986: 228–245). Die tweede van hierdie ankers konstitueer die “diskoers” wat, volgens Barthes, buite die beperkinge van ‘n logiese‐temporale orde bestaan (Barthes 1992: 30) en wat, volgens Benveniste, net benoem hoef te word (Benveniste 1986: 228–245).

Notes

The Financial Assistance of the Centre for Scientific Development (HSRC, South Africa) towards this research is hereby acknowledged. Opinions expressed and conclusions arrived at, are those of the author and are not necessarily to be attributed to the Centre for Scientific Development.